Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: D.C.Mayor to announce today bill on gun carry outside the home

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162

    D.C.Mayor to announce today bill on gun carry outside the home

    Mayor Vincent C. Gray, D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson and council member Tommy Wells will announce details of the gun-carry proposal Wednesday. A draft of the proposal was not available Tuesday afternoon. A federal court ruling in July struck down the District’s prohibitions against carrying guns in public, and the city’s attempt to draft legislation outlining parameters for legal gun carry comes as officials are deciding whether to appeal that decision.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ing-gun-carry/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    I hope he makes it so restrictive that another suit is filed as soon as the ink is dry.

  3. #3
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I hope he makes it so restrictive that another suit is filed as soon as the ink is dry.
    too little, too late. Noone should ever have accepted the so-called ban as it's not legal, has no force of law and any attempts to enforce it will almost certainly result in crimes being committed against the citizen and therefore trigger the availability of self defence to protect oneself and property.
    Last edited by rightwinglibertarian; 09-17-2014 at 03:11 PM.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by rightwinglibertarian View Post
    too little, too late. Noone should ever have accepted the so-called ban as it's not legal, has no force of law and any attempts to enforce it will almost certainly result in crimes being committed against the citizen and therefore trigger the availability of self defence to protect oneself and property.
    I don't follow what I consider to be unconstitutional laws .. I generally do not push people to do likewise, its an individual's choice if he is not willing to stand up for himself.

    many people are happy to wait for gov't officials in robes to rule on stuff and further violate their natural rights.
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 09-17-2014 at 03:27 PM.

  5. #5
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    I don't follow what I consider to be unconstitutional laws .. I generally do not push people to do likewise, its an individual's choice if he is not willing to stand up for himself.

    many people are happy to wait for gov't officials in robes to rule on stuff and further violate their natural rights.
    Regardless of the stick you get I've quite respected many of your posts. Shame more arent just as hardline. Maybe we wouldnt have this ridiculous back and forth with what one can and can't do.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,162
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ashburn, Va
    Posts
    85
    The word "resident" is all over that writeup. I wonder how the draft addresses non-residents.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Davis County, Utah
    Posts
    528
    Quote Originally Posted by homestar View Post
    The word "resident" is all over that writeup. I wonder how the draft addresses non-residents.
    2nd to last paragraph:
    Individuals with gun-carry permits from other states are also not allowed to carry firearms in the nation’s capital.
    Of course the legislation needs to be combed through, but it appears from the article that it'll be a "May Issue" (read as When they start having Snowball fights in Hell) system, with a litany of places the general public is likely to be/go to on a daily basis off limits, with a couple of no go instances thrown in for good measure to be used at the whim of LEO.

    Basically they're using a single stitch to fix a compound fracture.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Ashburn, Va
    Posts
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by b0neZ View Post
    2nd to last paragraph:


    Of course the legislation needs to be combed through, but it appears from the article that it'll be a "May Issue" (read as When they start having Snowball fights in Hell) system, with a litany of places the general public is likely to be/go to on a daily basis off limits, with a couple of no go instances thrown in for good measure to be used at the whim of LEO.

    Basically they're using a single stitch to fix a compound fracture.
    Gotcha. I saw that but assumed they were talking about present tense. I guess it makes more sense that they'd try to get away with drafting the legislation that way.

  10. #10
    Regular Member rightwinglibertarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    881
    Individuals with gun-carry permits from other states are also not allowed to carry firearms in the nation’s capital.
    What part of 'shall not be infringed' is that? Clearly that's unconstitutional and would have no force of law. I recommend a mass OC protest or even several of them.
    "Which part of shall not be infringed is so difficult to understand"?

    "Any and all restrictions on the bearing of arms in public places are nullified as per the Second Amendment"

    Conservative Broadcast || Google Plus profile

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Leesburg VA
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by homestar View Post
    Gotcha. I saw that but assumed they were talking about present tense. I guess it makes more sense that they'd try to get away with drafting the legislation that way.
    They are talking about the current law. The rest of the paragraph mentions the law as written after Heller for possession. It is not talking about the law they are writing for the ruling about carrying.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355
    Local news reported a few weeks ago that DC was looking essentially copy the VERY restrictive Maryland firearms laws regarding carry and Concealed Permit issue.
    Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Lawton, OK
    Posts
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Shovelhead View Post
    Local news reported a few weeks ago that DC was looking essentially copy the VERY restrictive Maryland firearms laws regarding carry and Concealed Permit issue.
    It has been a while since I looked over the ruling, but didn't the judge's ruling say that the right to carry a gun outside the home applies not only to residents of Washington, D.C., but also to visitors to the city. If so, then DC has to honor all CC permits. I do not know how the law works, but does the judge get a chance to review the new law to make sure it complies with his ruling?

    JC
    Last edited by jc79; 09-17-2014 at 10:46 PM.

  14. #14
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by jc79 View Post
    It has been a while since I looked over the ruling, but did the judge's ruling say that the right to carry a gun outside the home applies not only to residents of Washington, D.C., but also to visitors to the city. If so, then DC has to honor all CC permits. I do not know how the law works, but does the judge get a chance to review the new law to make sure it complies with his ruling?

    JC
    Contempt?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  15. #15
    Regular Member Shovelhead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    NO VA, ,
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by jc79 View Post
    It has been a while since I looked over the ruling, but didn't the judge's ruling say that the right to carry a gun outside the home applies not only to residents of Washington, D.C., but also to visitors to the city. If so, then DC has to honor all CC permits. I do not know how the law works, but does the judge get a chance to review the new law to make sure it complies with his ruling?

    JC
    Why would DC "have to"?
    Maryland doesn't honor any other state's Carry Permit.
    Last edited by Shovelhead; 09-18-2014 at 07:40 AM.
    Assault Weapon (N) “Any firearm whose design disturbs the sleep of progressive politicians.”.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •